Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joe" data-source="post: 463609" data-attributes="member: 9">Heres what this link sez:<img src="https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/images/default-source/almanac/article-images/almanac-statistics-15.png?sfvrsn=56bda140_6" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity[/URL]As individual donors, conservatives are hearty givers—as made clear in this graph, the one previous, and many other data sets.When it comes to running foundations, though, liberals tend to control the reins. Matched analyses of the major American foundations reported  in the book The New Leviathan found 82 foundations whose staff took a clear conservative orientation in their giving, and 122 foundations whose staff operated with a clear liberal orientation. The conservative-controlled foundations had assets of $10 billion in 2010, from which they gave away $832 million annually. That same year, the liberal-controlled foundations had assets of $105 billion (more than ten times their conservative counterparts), and gave away $8.8 billion annually (11 times as much as conservative counterparts).Many foundations end up espousing the priorities and orientations of their staff rather than the principles of the donor behind the foundation. As this has become more widely understood, some new foundations have made efforts to protect “donor intent” and be sure that funds are expended on causes compatible with the founder’s views. There has also been a sharp jump of interest in “sunset” foundations—which spend all their money relatively  close to the donor’s lifetime, rather than existing in perpetuity, where capture by staff becomes almost inevitable. See the text accompanying Graph 18 for more details on sunsetting.</blockquote>

Name

Verification